Courts Back Finance Systems in Okla., Fla.

Oklahoma's highest court and a trial court in Florida have rejected
arguments by school districts that those states' school-finance systems
violate the rights of children residing in areas with low property
values.

In a Nov. 24 decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held 5 to 3 that
neither the federal nor state constitution requires the legislature to
ensure that spending per pupil be equal throughout the state. That
ruling appears likely to end a suit by a coalition of 38 property-poor
districts that has been pending for five years.

And in Florida on Nov. 18, a county circuit judge rejected claims by
22 districts that the state finance system's heavy reliance on property
taxes, which results in wide spending disparities among districts,
violates the state constitution's mandate that the legislature provide
"for a uniform system of free public schools."

A lawyer for the Oklahoma plaintiffs said last week that it would be
several days before a decision was made on whether to seek a rehearing
before the state high court or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
ruling.

But the decision appears likely to stand in any event. The Oklahoma
court's ruling relied heavily on the Supreme Court's landmark 1973
decision that state systems of school finance that result in unequal
spending per student do not violate the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that ruling
in subsequent cases.

The lawyer for the Florida plaintiffs, meanwhile, has filed a motion
seeking a rehearing before the county circuit court.

Oklahoma Case

The Oklahoma suit was filed in 1980 by 54 schoolchildren, 48
taxpayers, and the Fair School Finance Council, an umbrella group
representing the 38 districts, which together enroll just under 180,000
students.

The plaintiffs alleged that the finance system's overreliance on
property taxes as a source of revenue, combined with the state
school-aid formula's inability to compensate fully for spending
disparities among districts, violated the equal-protection clause of
the 14th Amendment, as well as the state constitution's due-process and
education clauses.

A state trial court upheld the constitutionality of the finance
system in 1981 without having held a trial. The appeal went directly to
the state high court, which heard arguments in the case in 1982.

"The fact that there may be flaws in the administration of [property
taxes] does not support a claim that the entire school-finance system
is unconstitutional because some of its revenues are derived from those
taxes," wrote Justice Marian Opala for the majority in the decision
handed down last month.

Turning to the issue of the alleged violation of the federal
Constitution, Judge Opala noted that the plaintiffs "have not alleged
that they have been absolutely denied a free public education, nor that
they are not receiving an adequate one."

"Instead, they claim only that8they are not able to provide as much
money per pupil as do other districts," she continued. Under U.S.
Supreme Court precedents, "such [a] distinction does not constitute a
denial of equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment."

Nor does the state constitution require equal spending per pupil,
Justice Opala wrote. "The right guaranteed [by the state constitution]
is a basic, adequate education according to the standards that may be
established by the state board of education," she held. "There is
nothing in our previous decisions which suggests that the legislature
must provide equal expenditures per pupil in order to accomplish this
objective."

Florida Dispute

Like their counterparts in Oklahoma, the 22 property-poor Florida
districts allege in a suit filed last year that overreliance on
property taxes results in spending disparities among districts. That
situation, they claim, violates the state constitutional requirement
for uniform public education.

In a brief order, Leon County Circuit Judge J. Lewis Hall granted
partial summary judgment for the state defendants in the case, agreeing
with them that the state supreme court had held the finance system
constitutional in a 1981 case.

Graham Carothers, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said last week that
the judge's ruling was incorrect because the finance law at issue in
the previous case has since been revised by the legislature.

"If his ruling sticks, it would be substantially disadvantageous to
our case," he said.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.